Hi folks, I'm Alan
Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on April the 9th 2009.

I always advise the
newcomers to look into www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com where you can find hundreds of hours of
talks I've given in the past, where I try to give you information that is out
there (it's just not in the regular media; but it's certainly out there, in old
libraries with old books) to show you that the world is guided along a
particular path; along a strategic path. And those in control work
inter-generationally, through big Foundations mainly; and that's why they can
pull off what they want as their future, they bring it into being. A mammoth
task indeed; but it's not so hard when you realise that those who fund it, are
really just over a dozen world banking families, who fund all the Foundations
that then fund all the NGOs (the Non-Governmental Organisations) who demand
from government that which the government has been put in place to listen to;
that's the new type of democracy.

We're living
through the most momentous changes really in history. I think Rockefeller
himself talked about this change and he said it would be bigger than the
beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, where millions of people were forced,
with the power of the purse, off their lands into the big cities that were just
thrown up, industrial cities, massive upheaval and people moving across
countries. We're going through the big changes, the New World Order, as Mr.
Brown himself declared at the G20 meeting. It entails everything that we've
ever known, because most people will certainly have a hard time remembering
shortly what they've ever known as we go into rapid-rapid change.

Also: look into www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu for transcripts of these talks, which you can download for print-up,
written in the various languages of Europe.

You can also keep
me going, or at least ticking over, by purchasing that which is on my website
for sale at www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com or donate to me; and remember: those in the
US are fine with personal cheques, they're OK for Canada. And you can also
write to [listed above] and you can also
help me out that way too, because some people do listen to the show and they
don't look into the site, so they don't know where to send
anything.

We're on, as I say:
the greatest roll for many-many centuries - that Brzezinski, the Rockefellers
and others have written about in their own books. Mind you, they were writing
about this, 30-40 years ago, because they knew this was part of their goal,
this world empire; and those before them were churning out their books, those in
the same positions, high-level Technocrats, from the beginning of the 1900s
onwards. To do with the Brave New World they were going to bring in, all based
on a form of Darwinism, where humanity are animals and therefore can be
reshaped and remade / remoulded into any kind of society, any kind of new
society, based, as I say, on the ideas of Darwin. We saw this with the Soviet
Union, where they had the Soviet Man who was to be the New Man (in Nazi German
it was the Super Man); and today it's towards the perfect world citizen who is
a good producer and consumer, as they call it.

I think that's the
music coming in, so I'll be back with more, after this break.

=== BREAK ===

Hi folks, I'm Alan
Watt, we're Cutting Through The Matrix, discussing not just the changes that
have already come up, but the ones to come up, a whole world to be transformed;
and we don't have to guess at it any more because the leaders are all coming
out across the world, at the same time, giving the exact same speeches, as
though it's a done deal. What they're really declaring is the triumph of the
end of sovereignty of individual nations. It's all been done through stealth
and through treaty-signing for an awful long time and it's sewn up, because all
the boys on board that are placed in to be the tops of countries, all belong to
the same organisations; and upheaval is to come.

It's amazing that
when 2001 happened and the speech was made very quickly, I think it was by
Cheney or Rumsfeld, he said that nothing would ever be the same again; they
weren't kidding and I knew they weren't kidding. If we look at the changes that
have happened since then, across the world, simultaneously, with the same laws
being rammed through, with the same security measures being rammed through,
with identical measures, it tells you that all these countries were already
involved in treaties to implement all of those actions and that takes a long
time to prepare. Therefore, 9/11 was just the trigger that allowed them to put
it all into action, but really the machinery for it had already been done, all
the negotiations had been done; everybody was on board.

It's the same thing
with everything else that's happened since, and what's still happening, as we
go into the closer ties with each other, as they call them. Closer ties,
there’s different terms they use about amalgamation and closer ties is
one of them; Integration, of course, is the obvious other. And people
will think, well what's wrong with that? It sounds nice, what's wrong with all
being part of a nice world system? This is the kind of stuff they put into
science fiction books for 50 or 60 years; but everything's fine, until you
really look at it and say who's really running the system, where do they want
to go? Remember, those boys in the Foundations ran Eugenics societies, they
still do, by the way, they just call them Bioethics societies; and one of their
main targets is depopulation. The term sustainable development was meant
to substitute for that; it sounds better than depopulation. And people
are being reared, from kindergarten onwards, to have these mantras about
sustainable development, not realising that it means perhaps if the authorities
say that you're not fit to breed, or there's too many of you, you're just an
ordinary person who would produce an ordinary offspring, we don't need you,
then you could be sterilised; that's what's coming down the pike, because these
boys at the top are on a roll now.

They don't even
have to start drafting up legislation, I'm sure they already have it and they
have it discussed as well at very high levels. I've read some reports, from
societies that now advise governments, like the Optimum Population Trust. In this Brave New World, because we're all
primitive, according to those at the top, we haven't evolved as far as those at
the top; we're all primitives and we all have to be watched and monitored from
birth to death and readjusted along with the political correctness, as it keeps
changing. This is exactly what George Orwell warned us about, in his book '1984';
and he calls it different techniques, double-think, where you will have
two opposing ideas in your head about the same topic at the same time and -
somehow - you'll be able to manage that. You have to be able too, for the
bureaucratic classes initially, then the rest of the population, to forget all
that you've been told before, when you're told another reason for something and
parrot that, as though it's always been that way. That's where we are
today.

Here's an article
from the Guardian weekly, it says:

Big Brother is watching: surveillance box to track drivers is
backed

Privacy row brewing

Well that's
nonsense, because I've seen these privacy people before in Government, there's
always a minister appointed and they'll tell you themselves they have no power
to stop anything.

Tuesday 31 March 2009

The government is backing a project to install a "communication
box" in new cars to track the whereabouts of drivers anywhere in
Europe,

Well, you see,
they've really all been doing that all along, under the guise of insurance
fraud and saving people who get their cars stolen. It says:

the Guardian can reveal.

Under the proposals, vehicles will emit a constant "heartbeat"
revealing their location, speed and direction of travel. The EU officials
behind the plan believe it will significantly reduce road accidents,

They talk to us as
though we are children, how would it reduce anything?

congestion and carbon emissions. A consortium of manufacturers has
indicated that the router device could be installed in all new cars as early as
2013.

They can add that
to the one they're already put in the car.

However, privacy campaigners warned last night that a European-wide car
tracking system would create a system of almost total road surveillance.

a £36m EU initiative backed by car manufacturers and the telecoms
industry, will be unveiled this year.

Of course they're
all going to benefit out of it financially and guess who'll have to pay for the
extra?

But the Guardian has been given unpublished documents detailing the
proposed uses for the system. They confirm that it could have profound
implications for privacy, enabling cars to be tracked to within a metre - more
accurate than current satellite navigation technologies.

What they can also
do is shut your car down, just like the OnStar programme.

The European commission has asked governments to reserve radio frequency
on the 5.9 Gigahertz band, essentially setting aside a universal frequency on
which CVIS technology will work.

Well, you know if
Britain's doing it, they're going to do it here too, because whatever Britain
does now is copied immediately, world-wide.

The Department for Transport said there were no current plans to make
installation of the technology mandatory.

Now, they always
give you a few months where it's voluntary.

However, those involved in the project describe the UK as one of the
main "state backers".

Of course it
is.

Transport for London has also hosted trials of the
technology.

This is the world
we're going into, that was planned before 9/11 happened in fact, because I saw
similar articles floating the idea, back in the '90s and that's what they call
'trial balloons'. They put up a trial balloon, to see what the feedback
is from the public, it lets them know if the public really are paying
attention, or even care, and it gives them an idea of when to proceed and how
to proceed and implement it; trial balloons. Also predictive programming; and
to be honest with you, the people have bowed down so low today, to comply with
everything that's happened, I don't see any problem with them bowing even
lower; it’s the way it is.

And it's strange
now, because I've been talking today to someone about cyber war and how the
Internet was given to the public, because it's the best way to monitor
everyone. Everyone must be predictable in a totalitarian regime. And I was
thinking too about the nonsense we read recently about China hacking, I don't
know, a dozen countries, or maybe more, into governments’, through governments’
computers and taking data from them and even putting in software and reprogramming
them. Now, you think about this: every government in the world has pushed and
pushed for you to put all your data on the Internet and use the cashless
society, electronic banking. The same governments have all got the same
regulations to do with your spyware and the computers themselves. Every
computer sold to the public, in every country, must be hackable, by government
agencies. That means that all the spyware you buy and even what you think is
the best that you can buy, must be by-passable by the government agencies, so
it won't keep them out. Plus, they've installed 'back doors' in the computers.
Now, if you think you have an enemy, if you truly thought there was an enemy,
across the sea somewhere and that enemy can hack into the government computers,
that means that same enemy could also wipe-out every account, bank account, of
all you out there who do your cashless banking. And that's called economic
warfare, you crash that, the economy goes right down and we're all sunk. That's
not happened, has it? It hasn't happened. However, these super computers used
by a supposed enemy have hacked into the government computers, we're told.
Well, what chance would we truly have against this done against us ourselves?
We'd have none with our little AVGs and Spybots and all the rest
of it that we're allowed to purchase, none at all. Which tells you there are no
enemies, because they'd never set it up and put their public or slaves at risk
of being conquered by someone else, very simple.

From, I think it's
called the Wired Magazine, on May the 13th 2008, going back to 2008, this is
the article I've mentioned before:-

Air Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All' Computers

The Air Force wants a suite of hacker tools, to give it
"access" to -- and "full control" of -- any kind of
computer there is. And once the info warriors are in, the Air Force wants them
to keep tabs on their "adversaries' information infrastructure completely
undetected."

Back with more -
after these messages.

=== BREAK ===

I'm Alan Watt and
this is Cutting Through The Matrix, showing the listeners that when these guys
talk about doing something, they always do it; and there are people, including
myself, who seem to get hacked pretty regularly now, who are speaking out about
what's happening in the world. I guess that's the evidence, to ourselves
really, that we're being targeted, because we're saying something that is, at
least, being a nuisance to those in control. And to be honest with you, I don’t
think you can't do much more than be a nuisance, because I really do think it's
almost all sewn-up, except for those that still think, that's the only thing in
our favour: there are still people today who haven't succumbed and who can
still think for themselves, they know what's going on; they're sentient. To
continue with this article from Wired:

The government is growing increasingly interested in waging war online.
The Air Force recently put together a "Cyberspace Command," with a
charter to rule networks the way its fighter jets rule the skies.

To rule networks – They’re not kidding.

The Department of Homeland Security, DARPA, and other agencies are
teaming up for a five-year, $30 billion "national cyber security
initiative."

That includes an electronic test range, where federally-funded hackers
can test out the latest electronic attacks. "You used to need an army to
wage a war," a recent Air Force commercial notes. "Now, all you need
is an Internet connection."

On Monday, the Air Force Research Laboratory introduced a two-year, $11
million effort to put together hardware and software tools for "Dominant
Cyber Offensive Engagement." "Of interest are any and all techniques
to enable user and/or root level access," a request for proposals notes,
"to both fixed (PC) or mobile computing platforms... any and all operating
systems, patch levels, applications and hardware." This isn't just some
computer science study, mind you; "research efforts under this program are
expected to result in complete functional capabilities."

Unlike an Air Force colonel's proposal, to knock down enemy websites
with military botnets, the Research Lab is encouraging a sneaky, "low and
slow" approach. The preferred attack consists of lying quiet, and then
"stealthily exfiltrating information" from adversaries' networks.

I know people
who've had their hard drives fried with these and they admit they can fry your
hard drive; I've read the article on that as well. It's so simple, because,
after all the Military-Industrial Complex were using the Internet, long before
we even knew it existed. They gave it to the public, a lower-grade version mind
you; so, naturally, they made and designed it (the stuff for the public) to be
hackable and destructible as well, if need be, when you become a nuisance. It's interesting to watch this actually take
place; and it's certainly interesting to watch it happen, when it happens to
you.

Here's another
article along similar lines, this is from Mother Jones, of all magazines; and
it says here:

A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web
traffic and access private data.

It's from April the
2nd 2009.

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet
traffic during a state of emergency?

Well, if you don't
know it, we're in a perpetual state of emergency.

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think
so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National
Cybersecurity Advisor - an arm of the executive branch that would have vast
power to monitor and control Internet traffic

And here's
how:

to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad
power is rattling some civil libertarians.

It also has a PDF
here of the whole Bill, by the way.

... The bill does not define a critical information network or a
cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the
president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants
the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning
[critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule,
or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or
access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy
laws.

Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the
Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads
the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this
bill.

"We must protect

It's great how they
move chairs don't they? But they take the same Bills with them, it's a must-be;
this is one of his babies.

We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs - from our
water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health
records - the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed
her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably,
risk a cyber-Katrina."

Ha!

But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at
least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cyber-security threat is
real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology
(CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications
technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s,
requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping into data transmissions
between computers.

Back with more -
after this break.

=== BREAK ===

I'm Alan Watt and
this is Cutting Through The Matrix: showing you how everything's on a rampage
now, towards a particular goal. They have many goals, to fulfil different
levels. Some are five year plans; some are ten year plans; some are thirty
year; some fifty year plans. That's their M.O. [modus operandi],
intergenerational / Fabian alterations, to achieve their beautiful New World
Order. And today, I was talking to someone about Communism and I said: you
know, we're basically under the Soviet regime; and if they don't mention that
to the public in mainstream, the public, unfortunately, will not come to that
conclusion by themselves. Brzezinski was quite correct when he talked about the
scientific indoctrinations, and even using technotronic warfare on the public,
of which he said they'd be completely unaware. He said they will be shortly
unable to reason for themselves, they'll expect the media to do their reasoning
for them. Therefore, they can give you all the symptoms of what was called the
Soviet system but just don't mention Communism. If they don't mention it, the
general public will never catch on and say 'my goodness, this is kind of
familiar'. Remember: Collectivism
is another term for Communism that the Club of Rome used when they said they
preferred that system to run a world. That's what they were going to model all
of this on; that's why, by the way, that's why China is the model state for the
world, we've all to emulate them.

This is an article
from the Associated Press, yesterday.

Chavez says Beijing part of 'new world order'

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says his two-day visit to Beijing this
week is part of the creation of a "new world order."

That's just what
Brown said, isn't it? At the G20 meeting, a New World Order. All the ones you
thought were opposing each other, and they play this game in public, are all
going in the same direction, using the same terminology, isn't that kind of odd
folks? And just for the hard of thinking, I'll repeat that:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavezsays his two-day visit to Beijing this
week is part of the creation of a "new world order."

The frequent U.S. critic, who was to meet with China's president and
Communist Party leader Hu Jintao on Wednesday, told reporters upon arriving the
evening before that power in the world was shifting from America to countries
such as Iran, Japan and China.

That's exactly, of
course, what Brzezinski said, when he was coaching Obama; he was publishing
this stuff in major magazines and so on.

"We are creating a new world, a balanced world. A new world order,
a multi-polar world," Chavez said.

A "multi-polar
world," eh?

"The unipolar world has collapsed. The power of the U.S. empire has
collapsed," he said. "Everyday, the new poles of world power are
becoming stronger.

That's all over the
Foreign Affairs Magazine, the CFR’s official magazine and it's been out there
like that for months talking about the same thing, since last year in fact,
they've been talking about this, that the US must go down and new countries
emerge etc, emerging countries and take their rightful place. Meanwhile, of
course, America and some of the British Commonwealth countries have to fund it
all, you see? So:

"The unipolar world has collapsed. The power of the U.S. empire has
collapsed," he said. "Everyday, the new poles of world power are
becoming stronger. Beijing, Tokyo, Tehran ... It's moving toward the East and
toward the South."

Chavez has made Beijing a frequent stop in his global travels to promote
his agenda of anti-American world unity, stopping in the Chinese capital no
less than six times since rising to power in 1998 elections.

Here you have all
sides, supposedly, guys who publicly yell at each other and yell about each
other, all going in the same direction, using the same terms, giving the same
reasons and explanations for it happening; and we can't quite catch on there's
a big club here. There's only one pirate ship and they're all on board it;
that's how it really is, they're on board. Then the article goes on to talk
about all their investments and things that they're doing.

I'm also going to
put a link up, tonight, about that Bill that's going through, it's sitting
there waiting to go through, I think it was the guy from Monsanto, up next to
Obama, put it in: HR875. It truly is so open and vague; to do with food and
food safety that, literally, they can classify your kitchen as a preparation
place for food and have it government-inspected, it's an open door. Gardeners,
even home gardeners, could be charged and have their property confiscated, if
they don't go by certain guidelines and rules. And the people who put it
forward - as I say - all work for Monsanto. Are we really surprised? Because,
after all, you see, in this Brave New World, you have to be inter-dependent;
you cannot be independent for water, independent for your food or anything
else. You'd be anti-social if you're not inter-dependent on the system.
Therefore, every means of being independent has been, for many years, and now
it's on a roll, has been taken away from you, to make sure you're
inter-dependent, meaning totally dependent on the system, that's what it means.
Double-speak is wonderful, wonderful: interdependence means you have no
independence, quite simple. This is
going through and it's scaring a lot of people. This article here, it
says:

Criminalizing Organic and Home Growers

HR 875 The food police, criminalizing organic farming and the backyard
gardener, and violation of the 10th amendment

This bill is sitting in committee

They don't know
when it's going to go through, it probably will get rammed through; and then it
goes into all the things that can happen:

• Legally
binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively
taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for
the federal dept.

• Effects
anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.

• Effects
anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.

They don't miss a
thing eh?

• Legislation
is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made
illegal.

Every aspect of
growing or producing food can be made illegal. They're not stupid at the top, with their
legalisms, if they wanted to make it very clear, it would be clear. The reason
they leave it so vague and open is because they're going to exploit those areas
and use them over you, in an authoritarian manner. It says:

• There
are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation
is.

• Section
103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It
will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations
and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and
interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with?

• Section
206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be
enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that
a backyard gardener could be fined and more.

• Section
207 requires that the state’s agriculture dept act as the food police and
enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in
violation of the 10th amendment.

Well, who cares
about amendments anymore and all that stuff? Because no one's really taken any
look at that seriously for years, that's been obvious. They've even had
Presidents making rather sarcastic comments about them. It says here, it's an
interesting connection, because it's true:

Didn’t Stalin nationalize farming methods that enabled his
administration to gain control over the food supply?

Yes.

Didn’t Stalin use the food to control the people?

Yes, like Stalin
did when he starved the Ukrainians to death and actually took all their grain
from them. You see: food is a weapon. It says:

Last word …… Legislate religion and enforce gag orders on ministers on
what can and can’t be said in the pulpit, instituting regulations forcing
people to rely solely on the government, control the money and the food. What
is that called? It is on the tip of my tongue ……………

I'll put up the
link for that too, because it will end up where you have people coming into
your kitchen. They already have that in Britain, on a voluntary basis, mind
you, from the Government, where people are hired to go round and come into your
kitchen and check your refrigerator and advise, silly old you, how to store
food, use food and what you should eat and what you shouldn't eat and that's
where it's going to go. You'll have penalties eventually if there's too many
fatty foods, especially when they start weighing you, mandatory weighing; that
will come as well.

You see: we're just
livestock to these people at the top; livestock, they want to check the
condition of their livestock. Unfortunately, most folk don't mind today, don't
mind. They walk through, people with their holidays, on aircraft and here's the
guys come out with their socks on the floor, holding up their pants, like
somebody who'd just been captured and put in the Gestapo camp. They don't
complain, as long as they can go on their holidays. Humiliation, how much does
it take? Well it's endless isn't it? We've noticed that, endless humiliation. I
always think of Bertrand Russell when he said we shall create apathy with the
people; that's the sort of thing you do, to create apathy. You also show
massive force, by State powers, internal armies, call them police or whatever
you want. That also creates apathy, ‘well what can I do?’ It makes you feel so
small; this is all part of psychological conditioning and warfare. Amazing,
isn't it? Amazing; but that's the world that's the world that was planned long
ago, that's the world we're living through; and, meanwhile, everyone is
fighting everyone else, on other levels, as we all go under, which I said,
years ago, would happen.

Now, we've got a
caller from Australia, it's Paul, is Paul on the line there?

Paul: Hello Mr.
Alan Watt, how are you doing? It's an honour to talk to you as always,
sir.

Alan: How you
doin?

Paul: Not too bad
thank you; and just listening to what you were just saying Alan, about how far
will the government humiliate their people and I think to the point of death, I
reckon.

Alan: You're
right.

Paul: Quite sad,
quite sad. And you know, talking about, well for Australia anyway, the emblem
of the kangaroo and I think it's the Emu, about how they symbolise us as
animals, basically, would that be correct?

Alan: No doubt at
all, I've no doubt at all.

Paul: Because it
should be a man and a woman, like left to right, shouldn’t it, at a minimum
anyway? As the human race, instead of a kangaroo and the Emu for Australia!

Alan: Well, it's
better than Canada: Canada used to use the British flag; and then they pulled a
con, telling us we had more freedoms and they gave us a maple leaf and the
maple leaf is a red one; and a red maple leaf is a dead one, you get that in
the Fall! ha-ha!

Paul: I never would
have made that connection, you're right; you're right. And just one more quick
thing Alan: about Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia: he wanted
everybody to have optic fibre throughout all of Australia, everybody having it,
which would have cost billions and billions of dollars. But, luckily the
opposing side, and rightly so, said we wouldn't be able to afford to and he
kept on saying well, it'll pay off in the end. I was thinking, really, my main
point of that was why optic fibre everybody on the Internet? That seems like a
form of spying and all of that.

Alan: Yes, well,
that's why they gave us Internet; in fact, they could not pull all of this off
unless they were absolutely sure with their data collection. It’s to keep the
pulse on everybody, and the trends, and to keep the present trends, they're
always ahead of the game. They couldn't pull any of this off without computers,
that goes for all police enforcement, everything. You know, in Europe and it's
the same in Britain, they're all connected, all the policemen, every policeman
is connected with a special system, with a new radio and he can talk to any cop
across Europe. The lowly policeman can talk to any cop across Europe, with this
interconnected system, any time he wants. They have their own special ones for
themselves; but, for the general public, we're just an open book. We are an
open book, for them to read daily; and they know exactly what to do. They know
if there's resentment against something, which tells them how to get round it.
The Rand Corporation uses this data all the time and projects upcoming trends
and how they can enforce certain things and get round objections; it's all done
with data collection.

Paul: Absolutely,
it's kind of like the devil himself is having a book of life for millions of
people in this world. It's kind of like that, how he wants to track everybody
and try to have his own book of life, because it's kind of like the Big Brother
system, Alan, in the UK, of England, of how Big Brother cameras everywhere,
because, I believe that the Devil is not omnipresent, like the Lord Jesus
Christ is; and so he must have to keep a physical eye throughout the
world.

Alan: It's a
physical eye; the technique too, is just one place removed from the old
technique. If you look at the Communist countries or any totalitarian country
in the past, you'd have massive photographs and pictures of the leader in the
streets. You'd have them in doorways, have them in alleyways, you'd have them
everywhere you look. Big brother was really there: the face of Lenin, or Stalin
or Adolph and so on. If you go back into ancient times and the Eye of Ra, if
you were a slave in Egypt, that was everywhere you looked, there was always an
Eye of Ra somewhere, watching you. Psychologically, it makes you feel so tiny,
small and it made you, again, apathetic, thinking 'There's nothing I can do,
this all-knowing eye sees every move I make, if I run off, they'll know'. It's
the same kind of technique; that's one of the main objects of all of this
surveillance, is the psychological effect, to get the public to feel apathetic.
Because, again too: in any experiment, that which is being observed will behave
differently when it knows it's being observed. Therefore, our behaviour is
modified when we know we're being watched, we're acting through life, people
are posing and acting and constantly second-guessing themselves, in case they
do something that might be construed as wrong, or misinterpreted as being
wrong. We're being trained, through all this observation; and the cameras are
part of the training system.

Paul: You're so
correct, it's been an honour speaking with you Alan, thank you very much.

Alan: Thanks for
calling. Now, we'll go to Andrea, from New York, are you there Andrea?

Andrea: Hello,
Alan?

Alan: Yes.

Andrea: Hi, I was
watching Reality Check Part 2 and you talk about flags and you talk about the
British and the American and the French flags and evolution, after revolution,
of the flags. The British flag, at one time, had the red and white stripes and
then the Templar Cross and the St. Andrew's Cross, in the upper left-hand
corner, right?

Alan: That was the
British East India Company; that was the first major international corporation,
owned by the Crown and nobility, from the 1500s.

Andrea: That wasn't
the British flag then?

Alan: They had the
British flag in the corner of it. Hold on a second and we'll take this up,
after this break.

=== BREAK ===

I'm Alan Watt and
this is Cutting Through The Matrix, talking to Andrea, from New York, about the
flags; continue Andrea.

Andrea: So, the
British East India Company flag became the British flag?

Alan: No, they
already had what they call the Union Jack, that's the cross and the St Andrew's
Cross combined; but, you see, understand: England started off with the Knights
Templars Cross, the red cross.

Andrea: Oh,
right.

Alan: And that's
the sign in itself that something else is running England, but then they merged
with the St. Andrew's cross of Scotland, because they were building up an
Empire and they added to it that way as well. When they created the
Corporations, and, as I say, the Crown is the first major Crown Corporation, in
the time of Elizabeth the 1st, the first truly Rosicrucian Court that created
the British East India Company and then they had a succession of flags that
kind of evolved over time. One of their flags also was interesting, because it
had the stripes of course, the red and white, horizontal; and they also had a
circle of stars on a blue background, for every place that they basically
owned, where they had a depot, a major depot in the country.

Andrea: Were these
white stars?

Alan: Yes and it's
interesting to see that, because the European Union has got twelve stars on a
blue background, in a circle. And: the original revolutionary flag of the US,
didn't have horizontal stripes of stars, it had a circle of thirteen stars, on
a blue background, just like they did at the old East India Company, before
they put up the British one on top of it. So, it's interesting to see the same
people obviously, the same associations, obviously, down through time, using
the same symbology, time after time and the public don't catch on to it. In the
Pythagorean, remember too, they're always talking about Pythagoras, in the
so-called High Masonic tradition and Fabian Society, it's all part of the same
thing, they use colour-coding as well. For instance, do you ever wonder why
they have blue for Conservative and police etc and then when you have the
Labour or Liberal, it's a red tie they'll wear and you also have the green ones
in now as well. These are all sacred colours, because each colour represents a
technique of use over the public and revolution is the red one, so you have the
cap is red and the flag is red; and then, under law, they’ll always say we're
bringing in a constitution for a new government, under law, well in comes the
blue, you see. Of course, it's done by few, those who are illumined.
What is illumined? Those who are white – so you always have white; so it's
always red, white and blue for the High Masonic tradition; but the sacred
colour, that's never shown until completion, is green.

Andrea: Oh, my! So,
what about the French flag?

Alan: The French is
the same. It was born in revolution and it is red, white and blue.

Andrea: Ok, thank
you very much.

Alan: Thanks for
calling.

Andrea: Ok,
bye.

Alan: Yes, we live
through a system of languages and, again, it's always in your face, but people
don't stop to question, or think. If you look at the present world maps, look
at all the small countries now that have triangles and pyramids of all kinds;
and sunrises, very important, sunrises over water or land. The dawning of a new
day etc., it's in our faces and the cluster, the little cluster around the UN,
very important: that's the conqueror in ancient Rome.

So, from Hamish and
myself in Ontario, Canada, it's goodnight and may your god, or your gods, go
with you.